Talk:COBOL/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Esquivalience in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


I am going to commence the review as soon as I can. Esquivalience t 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

First review

edit

Looks good; but ref. 5 really needs to be replaced with a better source (ref. 4 is not too bad).

  • "In contrast with modern, succinct notation like y = x;, COBOL uses MOVE x TO y." - Should be something like: "COBOL uses more traditional notation [or "more English-like notation", whichever fits better] (in this case, MOVE x TO y)". And shouldn't it be "syntax" instead of "notation"?
  • "A 1959 survey had found that in any data processing installation, the programming costs at least $800,000 and that translating programs to run on new hardware would cost $600,000." - correct grammar in underlined text (suggestions above). Also, the source says the cost is on average, so I think it should mention that the cost is on average.
  • "In the early 1990s it was decided to add object-orientation in the next full revision of COBOL. - should be reworded.
  Done I've applied the changes you've suggested. Thanks for the comments! EdwardH (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Looks good! I'll scour through sources to see if there's no OR, then, if there are no problems, promote. Esquivalience t 21:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

List for first review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    See suggested improvements above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Find a more reliable source than ref. 5. Also, checking more sources to see if there is original research, but looks good so far.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    The strong point of this article. Very comprehensive.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Final review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: